On a far more important note Miguel Cabrera won the triple crown, the first player to win it since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. This is a very neat thing for baseball fans.
Wikinvest Wire
Thursday, October 04, 2012
The Debate
Last night's Presidential debate was very entertaining. I think Romney cleaned Obama's clock in terms of being more specific (not to say he was very specific) and bringing many more facts to the table. While I would prefer Romney, I still don't think he can win Ohio however.
On a far more important note Miguel Cabrera won the triple crown, the first player to win it since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. This is a very neat thing for baseball fans.
On a far more important note Miguel Cabrera won the triple crown, the first player to win it since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. This is a very neat thing for baseball fans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
RE the debate. Obama's problem is that now, unlike 4 years ago, he has a record. The economy is still abysmal and his Middle East policy (sure to come up in the next debate) has produced the murder of the American ambassador to Libya. Any time he says something like, "I am going to do this, that, or the other to make things better over the next 4 years;" Romney's response/question is, "Yes, but why over the next 4 years and not starting 4 years ago when your party had total control of both houses of Congress?" Now that the debate season has started, the effectiveness of both candidates' ads drops tremendously. I live in one of the battleground states, and the political ads run non-stop; whenever one comes on, I just mute it and go do something else or click to another channel. All political ads are designed to distort reality and are filled with exaggerations, half-truths, and flat-out lies. People know that, have grown tired of listening to deception, and will now make up their minds on the basis of the debates much more so than ads or campaign appearances.
Romney's whoppers during the debate -- the cost of his tax cuts, the coverage of pre-existing conditions, etc. -- will get run through the fact-checking meat grinder this week so it will be Obama's record vs Romney who has contradicted his own statements on every major issue but whose contradictions and lack of detail are much better practiced now; more fluid and aggressive.
Americans have a tendency to mistake facile aggressiveness for authenticity -- witness our fondness for reality TV -- so I suspect the Obama teams knows their guy will have to come out tougher next round.
Got popcorn.
it already was fact checked.
You should be feelin' good today random...bosox fired valentine.
a national nightmare has ended
I once knew a conspiracy theorist who later turned out to be mentally ill (he also committed murder but that's irrelevant here): He could spout what sounded like highly technical explanations, throwing out one esoteric term after another in a rapid fire speech that was very difficult to follow until, eventually, you realized none of it hung together; it was incoherent.
That was Mitt Romney last night: He was aggressive and articulate; he threw together a series of words that sounded and looked good while he was saying them but, in reality, had little correlation to the real world and virtually no relationship to positions Romney has taken since he began running, at least to the degree it could be said Romney has every really taken any position that he later did not contradict.
The polls show Republicans were so happy to see Romney spank the dark fella that they, momentarily at least, didn't care he had contradicted or even repudiated most of the hard-right positions he espoused during the primaries to do so ...but the polls also showed that Romney lost some ground among independent voters and, if that pattern endures this week, then the debate was a nothingburger, just more reality TV; barring a major 'October Surprise'(TM) Romney is over, done and out.
Not that it really matters: Entertainment value aside, the US political system is so captured by plutocrats that there can really be only one winner and it is not going to be you or me so staying clear-headed and pushing politics out of investment analysis has never been more important. Which brings me to this link (ht Barry Ritholtz): A conservative investor (that I listen to even when I disagree) who not only understands macroeconomics and modern central banking but does not allow his ideology to cloud analytic and investment judgement; read it at http://tinyurl.com/95cmsur and appreciate.
I never considered Ritholtz to be conservative, but I guess that's a personal definition that depends on where one is looking from. But, "the dark fella;" honestly, a stale liberal tactic to inject race into virtually every conversation, which has less impact with each inappropriate use.
Reading comprehension needs improvement: The subject of the sentence was the link, not Ritholtz who just got the hat tip: The link is to the blog of Jeff Miller, a very conservative and very smart fellow.
As to opinions about putatively stale liberal tactics, well, one stale opinion is worth no more than another I suppose but, to steal the stale conservative tactic of seizing a small fact as equivalent to refuting a large, the POTUS is in fact dark and male, so tu quoque.
Post a Comment